Inclusion Tree submission – 29 March 2026
Inclusion Tree welcomes the opportunity to contribute to the NDIS Evidence Advisory Committee’s February 2026 consultation. We provide this submission from the dual perspective of:
Our submission is grounded in person-centred, relationship-based, and strengths-based practice, informed by the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD). We explicitly embed Supported Decision Making, Active Support, and Conscious Care and Support as essential practice frameworks that must underpin both how supports are delivered and how evidence of effectiveness is interpreted.
Inclusion Tree provides human-centred support services, in most all States and Territories of Australia. Our services are individually tailored, strengths-focused, trauma-informed, and inspired by leading edge practices and social innovations.
We enjoy compassionately inquiring together to co-create solutions that make a difference to the people experiencing disability and mental health.
We know that investing in our people and acknowledging their gifts is what makes our business thrive. We are committed to nurturing the personal and professional development of all our staff through an intentional culture of growth and learning.
We do this through providing Support Coordination, Capacity building, workforce training and allied health services to NDIS participants. We support 860 participants of which 63% manage their own supports through independent workers and ‘service for one’ models.
We are currently developing a Registered Training Organisation to deliver education.
We actively participate in industry working groups, events, roadshows, as well as policy and consultation sessions, advocating tirelessly for the rights of individuals to maintain control of their lives.
We engage with the NDIS in many ways, both personally with loved ones on the NDIS, and professionally with the participants we support. We do this by:
Across all supports under review, Inclusion Tree strongly recommends that evidence assessment explicitly align with the UNCRPD, particularly:
Evidence frameworks that prioritise outcomes such as function, behaviour change, or skills acquisition without equal weighting to autonomy, wellbeing, participation, and rights risk endorsing supports that are technically effective but ethically misaligned.
Conscious Care and Support requires practitioners to work with awareness of power, trauma, relational impact, and context. Evidence reviews should therefore:
Inclusion Tree recognises that early childhood supports can support learning, communication, and participation. However, we urge the Committee to ensure that any endorsement of EIBI:
Person-Centred and Relationship-Led Delivery
Evidence should distinguish between approaches that are:
Supported Decision Making for Children and Families
Families must be meaningfully supported to:
Active Support and Everyday Contexts
Evidence should value:
Outcomes Beyond Skill Acquisition
Assess outcomes including:
We support Positive Behaviour Support as a rights-based, person-centred framework when practised as intended. However, we caution against interpretations that reduce PBS to:
PBS Must Remain a Human Rights Practice
Evidence should privilege PBS models that:
Supported Decision Making as Core Practice
PBS plans must be:
Workforce Capability and Supervision
Evidence assessments should consider:
Whole-of-Environment Approaches
PBS effectiveness should be evaluated in the context of:
Social skills do not develop in isolation from relationships, identity, belonging, and lived experience. Inclusion Tree is concerned that narrowly framed social skills training can unintentionally prioritise behavioural conformity over authentic communication, self-advocacy, and social inclusion.
Evidence assessment must therefore recognise that social competence is context-dependent, relational, and culturally embedded, rather than a discrete skill set that can be standardised or universally measured.
Strengths-Based and Neuro-Affirming Practice
Evidence should clearly differentiate between programs that:
Social difference should not be framed as deficit. Supports should align with UNCRPD Articles 7 and 24, which recognise the evolving capacities of children with disability and the right to inclusive education and participation.
Active Support in Real-World Contexts
Greater evidentiary weight should be given to approaches that embed social learning within:
Skills practiced in isolation without supported transfer into daily life often fail to generalise and may inflate perceived effectiveness without lasting impact.
Relational and Participation-Based Outcomes as Core Measures
Inclusion Tree recommends that evidence assessment prioritise outcomes such as:
These outcomes are more reflective of real-world impact than short-term improvements on standardised social skills scales.
Supported Decision Making for Young People and Families
Social skills supports should be chosen and adapted through supported decision making, ensuring that:
This is essential to upholding Article 12 of the UNCRPD in child and youth contexts.
Inclusion Tree recognises the potential of Robot-Assisted Gait Training to support mobility, physical conditioning, and rehabilitation for some people with disability. However, we strongly emphasise that RAGT must be understood as a tool within a broader, person-centred habilitation or rehabilitation pathway, not as an outcome in itself.
Evidence must reflect the principle that walking is not synonymous with participation, autonomy, or quality of life.
Person-Centred Goals Must Drive Use of RAGT
Evidence should clearly distinguish:
RAGT should only be recommended where it aligns with the person’s own goals and priorities, consistent with UNCRPD Articles 19 and 26.
Supported Decision Making and Informed Choice
People must be supported to make informed decisions about:
This includes honest conversation about whether the intervention supports participation, independence, or wellbeing — rather than implied expectations about “normalising” movement.
Active Support and Functional Transfer
Evidence frameworks should prioritise whether gains achieved through RAGT:
Without supported transfer into functional contexts, improvements risk remaining clinic-bound and of limited lived value.
Psychosocial and Identity Impacts Must Be Considered
The experience of RAGT can have emotional and identity impacts, particularly where:
Evidence assessment should include consideration of:
RAGT as Part of an Integrated Support Pathway
RAGT should be evaluated in comparison with — and in combination with — supports such as:
Effectiveness should be measured by overall quality-of-life outcomes, not isolated physical metrics.
As an RTO in development, Inclusion Tree emphasises that workforce capability critically mediates outcomes across all supports under review.
Evidence assessments should explicitly consider:
Supports shown to be effective in controlled conditions may produce very different outcomes when delivered by an under-trained or unsupported workforce.
Inclusion Tree strongly recommends that the Evidence Advisory Committee:
A rights-based NDIS evidence framework must assess not only whether a support works, but for whom, in what context, and at what human cost or benefit.
We acknowledge the connections of First Nations People of Australia to the land, sea and community on which we live and work. As custodians of this sacred land we respect and acknowledge Elders, past, present and emerging.
